People who impersonate military personnel should be locked up

[Careyp74]

Today is a proud day for those who have served in the military, and there are many out there today making an effort to commend those that have served. I have been aware for some time now that there are many people out there that for some sick reason find it fun to either dress up as a currently serving military member, of who claims veteran status without any prior service.

For all those here that have served, thank you.

For all those here that have not, but are acting like they have, watch out.

[sugarb]

Hello, Careyp74. Interesting post. (and from your avatar, I'm reckoning you're owed a thank you today!) :)

I'm not so sure they should be locked up, necessarily, but I do think they need to have themselves evaluated. Seems like there have been quite a few "impersonators" outed lately, and in a way I feel sorry for them, because...whatever kind of pretend they do, they can never really know how it feels to be what they pretend to be.

It is strange, though. Also lately, around here, we've had a few instances in recent years of people impersonating police officers, even pulling people over. I just...don't get that. In one case, it was a man attempting to rob or rape women he pulled over. How scary is that? It makes someone like me, travelling alone, fear getting pulled over. Is it "real"? Or not? And how can you tell?

Ya know, I think really what needs to happen is they need to stop making military clothing/surplus available to purchase (it is very easy around here), and I think before they sell retired police vehicles, they should take off the mirrors/spotlights, and perhaps even repaint them.

But I'm with you. It is sad.

Thanks to all our veterans, AND their families.

[geni]

You are in the US so Stolen Valor Act of 2005. Not sure how well it would survive a 1st amendment challange though.

[Ryokan]

Today is a proud day for those who have served in the military, and there are many out there today making an effort to commend those that have served.

Any military?

[Travis]

Another thing to get upset about is people who impersonate French Mimes. I mean, seriously, what nerve?

[Careyp74]

Another thing to get upset about is people who impersonate French Mimes. I mean, seriously, what nerve?

that whole irritating Marcel Marceau act is what gives mimes in general a bad name.

Hello, Careyp74. Interesting post. (and from your avatar, I'm reckoning you're owed a thank you today!) :)

I'm not so sure they should be locked up, necessarily, but I do think they need to have themselves evaluated. Seems like there have been quite a few "impersonators" outed lately, and in a way I feel sorry for them, because...whatever kind of pretend they do, they can never really know how it feels to be what they pretend to be.

It is strange, though. Also lately, around here, we've had a few instances in recent years of people impersonating police officers, even pulling people over. I just...don't get that. In one case, it was a man attempting to rob or rape women he pulled over. How scary is that? It makes someone like me, travelling alone, fear getting pulled over. Is it "real"? Or not? And how can you tell?

Ya know, I think really what needs to happen is they need to stop making military clothing/surplus available to purchase (it is very easy around here), and I think before they sell retired police vehicles, they should take off the mirrors/spotlights, and perhaps even repaint them.

But I'm with you. It is sad.

Thanks to all our veterans, AND their families.

Thanks. I used to get much of my uniforms from the surplus store. Much cheaper than the NEX. Actually, come to think of it, the NEX required a military ID to sell uniform items, while the surplus store didn't.

They should be evaluated, at the very least.

You are in the US so Stolen Valor Act of 2005. Not sure how well it would survive a 1st amendment challange though.

I think even better would be public humiliation. Fight fire with fire.

Any military?

Any military here in the forum? Good question. Is there a database that anyone knows about, or a group military and ex military can join?

[billw]

A current example from today's LA Times:

A Palm Springs man who has never served in the military is expected to surrender to authorities Thursday to face charges of wearing military medals he did not earn, authorities said today.

Steve Burton, 39, has agreed to surrender at the U.S. District Court in Riverside. He was charged Friday by federal prosecutors in L.A. with the unauthorized wearing of military medals after he was allegedly seen and photographed wearing military uniforms and decorations.

The FBI was contacted by a Navy commander after she attended her high school reunion and saw Burton wearing a Marine Corps uniform displaying several medals, including the Navy Cross, the Bronze Star, the Purple Heart and others, according to an affidavit filed in United States District Court.

The Navy Cross is the highest medal the Navy awards and is the second highest award given for valor, second only to the Medal of Honor.

Suspicious, the commander asked to be photographed with Burton. The photo was used in the investigation. The FBI said it also found that Burton had made Internet postings about being a Marine and had written about his “combat experience” as well as his “service” in Afghanistan and Iraq. He also allegedly posted a picture of himself standing on a beach at Coronado wearing a Marine dress uniform with three rows of medals.

The misdemeanor offense of unauthorized wearing of military medals carries a statutory maximum penalty of one year in federal prison.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/11/phony-navy-medals.html

[Ryokan]

Any military here in the forum? Good question. Is there a database that anyone knows about, or a group military and ex military can join?

I meant any military from any country in the world?

[Careyp74]

I meant any military from any country in the world?
Sorry, still not following.

ETA: I notice you are in gear, and live in Norway. maybe the question is about thanking all who serve in the military in other countries? Well, naturally, our allies. You serving for Norway is commendable. BTW, I have pulled into Tromso, beautiful place to sail.

[Ryokan]

Well, you just mentioned military, so for all I know you also think we should celebrate those who served in the Iraqi Republican Guard, in the North Korean military, etc.

There's nothing special about being in the military in and of itself. The military is a necessary evil that we sadly have to live with.

And yes, I've served my country, domestic and abroad, and I'm currently in the Norwegian home guard.

[Sabrina]

Anyone know if it's still a federal offense to impersonate an officer of the US Military?

I'm not sure why they don't just make it a federal offense to impersonate a SOLDIER, but last I heard it was only if they were impersonating an OFFICER that it became a federal offense. But the law may have changed; I'm not sure.

And to my brothers and sisters in arms, active duty, reservists, retirees, the fallen, and their families: Thank you all for your sacrifice.

ETA: Apparently it still is, under Title 18 U.S.C., since officers are federal employees. I'm just not sure why they don't include NCOs and the lower enlisted in that definition.

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

I would hope they don't put restrictions on purchasing military surplus clothing. It's all I wear. No insignia, of course, but BDU clothing is comfortable, durable and cheap. Just because some jackasses act like idiots is no reason to ruin things for everyone.

[qayak]

Well, you just mentioned military, so for all I know you also think we should celebrate those who served in the Iraqi Republican Guard, in the North Korean military, etc.

There's nothing special about being in the military in and of itself. The military is a necessary evil that we sadly have to live with.

Exactly. Why is it that some young, patriotic person from one country is more noble than a young, patriotic person from another?

Unless of course one believes that every action their country has been involved in has been for a noble cause and, no other country, in any action they are involved in, can make that claim.

[Careyp74]

Well, you just mentioned military, so for all I know you also think we should celebrate those who served in the Iraqi Republican Guard, in the North Korean military, etc.

There's nothing special about being in the military in and of itself. The military is a necessary evil that we sadly have to live with.

And yes, I've served my country, domestic and abroad, and I'm currently in the Norwegian home guard.

That was my Americanism showing. Forgot that this forum is frequented by others outside the US. Today is Veterans Day here in the US. That is what is special about today. Here, you are not required to serve, so it is good to honor those that do.

[Careyp74]

Exactly. Why is it that some young, patriotic person from one country is more noble than a young, patriotic person from another?

Unless of course one believes that every action their country has been involved in has been for a noble cause and, no other country, in any action they are involved in, can make that claim.

What are you trying to start? Where are you getting these premises from?

[qayak]

What are you trying to start? Where are you getting these premises from?

Why is a soldier from your country more noble than one from another? Is it the cause that decides, or is it that they do their job well?

Canada has fought a war with the US, we were not your allies at that point. Does that mean that our soldiers in that war should not be honored, or that yours shouldn't?

How about when WWII veterans from opposing countries meet and honor each other? Are they mistaken to do so?

How about if one disagrees with the reason for the Iraq war, should they hate the soldiers who are over there doing their job to the best of their ability?

Exactly what are we allowed to respect and what are we not, in your opinion?

[Carnivore]

Certainly outright frauds like Captain Sir Alan McIlwraith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Mcilwraith) who pretended to the KBE, DSO and MC should be publicly mocked on all occasions. But just wearing bits of army surplus isn't at all the same thing as pretending to be a former soldier.

As for the Stolen Valor Act, how does that work? Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Valor_Act_of_2005) seems to suggest it is illegal to wear a medal you have not personally been awarded. Does it specifically cover pretending to have been awarded them, or just wearing them? If so, what about wearing your parents or grandparents medals at remembrance ceremonies? (My Mum proudly wore her Mum's WWII service medals every ANZAC day.)

[Careyp74]

Why is a soldier from your country more noble than one from another? Is it the cause that decides, or is it that they do their job well?

Who ever said that a soldier from my country is more noble?


Canada has fought a war with the US, we were not your allies at that point. Does that mean that our soldiers in that war should not be honored, or that yours shouldn't?

Why would that be?


How about when WWII veterans from opposing countries meet and honor each other? Are they mistaken to do so?

Why would you assume that?


How about if one disagrees with the reason for the Iraq war, should they hate the soldiers who are over there doing their job to the best of their ability?

Again, why? Why would you assume that I am making any statements about any of this?


Exactly what are we allowed to respect and what are we not, in your opinion?

What did I say against anyone being able to respect anything?

[qayak]

Who ever said that a soldier from my country is more noble?



Why would that be?



Why would you assume that?



Again, why? Why would you assume that I am making any statements about any of this?



What did I say against anyone being able to respect anything?

I think it all started when you drew that line in the sand about "us" and "our allies." ;)

[Careyp74]

Certainly outright frauds like Captain Sir Alan McIlwraith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Mcilwraith) who pretended to the KBE, DSO and MC should be publicly mocked on all occasions. But just wearing bits of army surplus isn't at all the same thing as pretending to be a former soldier.

As for the Stolen Valor Act, how does that work? Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Valor_Act_of_2005) seems to suggest it is illegal to wear a medal you have not personally been awarded. Does it specifically cover pretending to have been awarded them, or just wearing them? If so, what about wearing your parents or grandparents medals at remembrance ceremonies? (My Mum proudly wore her Mum's WWII service medals every ANZAC day.)

That is a good question about wearing the medals. I do not think that it is a misdemeanor to do so, as the medals are presented to the next of kin. I am sure your mom never told anyone that she earned it in a war. Wearing the medals and claiming to have earned them probably isn't a misdemeanor either but will get you ridiculed on various websites.

[Careyp74]

I think it all started when you drew that line in the sand about "us" and "our allies." ;)

First tell me what the line I drew was, and then I will respond.

[qayak]

First tell me what the line I drew was, and then I will respond.

"ETA: I notice you are in gear, and live in Norway. maybe the question is about thanking all who serve in the military in other countries? Well, naturally, our allies. You serving for Norway is commendable. BTW, I have pulled into Tromso, beautiful place to sail."

Bolding mine

[Careyp74]

"ETA: I notice you are in gear, and live in Norway. maybe the question is about thanking all who serve in the military in other countries? Well, naturally, our allies. You serving for Norway is commendable. BTW, I have pulled into Tromso, beautiful place to sail."

Bolding mine

Ah, so when he asked who I was thanking, and I tried to clear up who I was thanking, and amended it to include our (my countries) allies, you had a problem with that? OK, let me answer some of your questions again.

Why is a soldier from your country more noble than one from another? Is it the cause that decides, or is it that they do their job well? No, not more noble, still don't know where you got that from. I am simply thanking those that served in my countries military on Veteran's Day, and perhaps thanking our allies too. Sorry you have a problem with me doing so.


Canada has fought a war with the US, we were not your allies at that point. Does that mean that our soldiers in that war should not be honored, or that yours shouldn't?
That is the least of my problems, There are states in the US that have fought with other states in the US, and there is still a lot of animosity about it. But I am willing to just thank ALL soldiers in my country, no matter what state they are from. Sorry you have a problem with that also.



How about when WWII veterans from opposing countries meet and honor each other? Are they mistaken to do so?
Well, today is Veteran's Day, and I am thanking the veterans from my country, and those currently serving. I don't have an issue about opposing countries veterans honoring each other, why do you have an issue with me honoring them?


How about if one disagrees with the reason for the Iraq war, should they hate the soldiers who are over there doing their job to the best of their ability?

Nothing to do with me thanking my countries veterans and current serving soldiers. Sorry you have a problem with me doing so.


Exactly what are we allowed to respect and what are we not, in your opinion?
Respect anything you like, after all, you probably aren't going to criticize yourself the way you are criticizing me.

[fuelair]

Why is a soldier from your country more noble than one from another? Is it the cause that decides, or is it that they do their job well?

Canada has fought a war with the US, we were not your allies at that point. Does that mean that our soldiers in that war should not be honored, or that yours shouldn't?

How about when WWII veterans from opposing countries meet and honor each other? Are they mistaken to do so?

How about if one disagrees with the reason for the Iraq war, should they hate the soldiers who are over there doing their job to the best of their ability?

Exactly what are we allowed to respect and what are we not, in your opinion?

If it helps, I certainly honor Lt.-Col. John MacDonell !! and am a US vet (RVN service).

[sugarb]

Ah, so when he asked who I was thanking, and I tried to clear up who I was thanking, and amended it to include our (my countries) allies, you had a problem with that? OK, let me answer some of your questions again.

*snip*

That is the least of my problems, There are states in the US that have fought with other states in the US, and there is still a lot of animosity about it. But I am willing to just thank ALL soldiers in my country, no matter what state they are from. Sorry you have a problem with that also.

*snip*

Respect anything you like, after all, you probably aren't going to criticize yourself the way you are criticizing me.

Hello again, Careyp74. About the war between the states...this past Memorial Day, one of the oldest running Memorial Day Parades, in Ironton, OH, did what I consider to be an awful, awful thing. Like you, I think soldiers of all conflicts deserve remembrance. But this year, Ironton refused to allow Confederate reenactors (representing the Sons of Confederate Veterans) participate in their parade. Union reenactors were fine. Confederates were banned. The public debate was infuriating. On the one side you had people like you and I, who want to honor all soldiers, but on the other you had people saying that Confederates were bigots (all the same old tired ignorant arguments) and were a disgrace to our nation, blah blah blah. In the end, the city still refused to let them participate. It was quite upsetting.

I'm not so sure we've come as far as we like to think we have. But today, in this country, I think all of our veterans deserve to be honored. If it were international veterans day, I'd say we should recognize international veterans. I've never served, but I suspect that a soldier is a soldier, no matter what side they fight for. I don't see it as being an easy life. I couldn't myself do what soldiers are ordered sometimes to do. But I do recognize that, all across this globe, much of what we have achieved is due to soldiers of all nationalities. Where we fail, it is due to governments. In wars, we should never hate the soldiers. They simply do their jobs. And thank goodness someone does those jobs.

[hgc]

What do you think of actual veterans who exaggerate their rank, job or exploits in the military? I'm reminded of the one-time president of Lotus Development Corp, who used to regale customers and others with his stories of being a Marine fighter pilot. His resume says he retired a captain. Turns out he was an air traffic controller and left as a 1st leutenant.

This was among much other made up personal history -- Orphan! It's so cliched.

[JoeyDonuts]

A word on Stolen Valor -

Though the letter of the law states that any fraudulent claim, written or verbal, to any medals or insignia is punishable under Title 18 U.S.C., in practice the only ones that ever get prosecuted are the ones that are known to publicly wear uniforms/medals/insignia and are using their false identities for some kind of personal gain.

Your internet tough guys and the weepy older guy in the VFW hall scamming drinks with his POW/MIA motorcycle jacket won't usually see any kind of legal action unless their fakery becomes high-profile.

You'll notice that nobody ever claims to be an out of shape National Guard file clerk. Most of the time the fakers will claim the fantastic - service in one of the service's elite Special Forces, clandestine work for the CIA, black ops, and will have no qualms telling you all about everyone they've killed.

That's the first giveaway - the profuse public braggarting.

The kind of men and women who have had actually "been there, done that" will not casually tell strangers about their exploits. They're known as "quiet professionals" for a reason.

For the minor cases, the community polices itself through sites like pownetwork.org.

[Ryokan]

I'm not so sure we've come as far as we like to think we have. But today, in this country, I think all of our veterans deserve to be honored. If it were international veterans day, I'd say we should recognize international veterans. I've never served, but I suspect that a soldier is a soldier, no matter what side they fight for. I don't see it as being an easy life. I couldn't myself do what soldiers are ordered sometimes to do. But I do recognize that, all across this globe, much of what we have achieved is due to soldiers of all nationalities. Where we fail, it is due to governments. In wars, we should never hate the soldiers. They simply do their jobs. And thank goodness someone does those jobs.

Much of what we have achieved may be due to soldier, but the only reason we need them is that soldiers of other nations may be utter bastards. Many of them are not simply doing their jobs, that excuse died at Nuremberg.

It has been somewhat of a hot topic in Norway over the years, whether Norwegian soldiers in SS-service during WW2 should have a war pension or not - when it's very likely they took part in atrocities, even though we don't have evidence for each individual.

I'll gladly join you guys in honoring specific soldiers for their deeds, but to honor all soldiers in all armies everywhere? No! Soldiers are not inherently good and honorable, no matter what nation they're from. We only keep soldiers around because we have to, and they day we can take away their guns and abolish all armies will be a good day. Sadly, I doubt that will be anytime soon, and the world is less for it.

[Darth Rotor]

Qayak: given that this is Veteran's Day, Armistice Day, or Remembrance day, and Norway didn't IIRC fight in WW I, what is your intent of trying to put words in Carey's mouth?

Ryokan: IIRC, you served with UNPROFOR in Bosnia, and have shared the narrative of some interesting exploits with us. It's been a few years, but I remember you commenting on some of the actions you were engaged in. (Tanks/APC"s involved?)

As I don't know: what does your country do in terms of holidays of honoring your vets? The point of Carey's post is that

IT IS VETERAN'S DAY IN AMERICA, AND SIMILAR DAY OF NATIONAL NOTE IS ALSO HONORED IN CANADA AND THE UK.

Qayak take note the above capitalized sentence.

DR

[JoeyDonuts]

I'll gladly join you guys in honoring specific soldiers for their deeds, but to honor all soldiers in all armies everywhere? No! Soldiers are not inherently good and honorable, no matter what nation they're from. We only keep soldiers around because we have to, and they day we can take away their guns and abolish all armies will be a good day. Sadly, I doubt that will be anytime soon, and the world is less for it.

While I agree with a lot of what you say, or at least the premise of it, I think a large part of the disagreement we're seeing in this thread may boil down to cultural differences.

The United States military is an enormous part of our collective history in this country. We honor all of those who have chosen to sacrifice the best years of their lives towards the service of their country.

Soldiers are not inherently good and honorable, but what they stand for and the creed they are supposed to uphold is. It represents the best qualities we value as a nation.

I refer you to the Sailor's Creed, which has been a big part of my life:

I am a United States Sailor.
I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and I will obey the orders of those appointed over me.
I represent the fighting spirit of the Navy and those who have gone before me to defend freedom and democracy around the world.
I proudly serve my country's Navy combat team with Honor, Courage, and Commitment.
I am committed to excellence and the fair treatment of all.

Do we always live up to those words? No. A lot of times in the routine of the day-to-day operations the military does it feels like just another job. It's not always easy to remember the responsibility you took on, and the gravity it carries.

When you swear that oath, you are swearing to hold up a higher standard for yourself, for those around you, and for your country.

But it is that very spirit of excellence, courage, and sacrifice that we honor on Veteran's Day in the United States.

[sugarb]

Much of what we have achieved may be due to soldier, but the only reason we need them is that soldiers of other nations may be utter bastards. Many of them are not simply doing their jobs, that excuse died at Nuremberg.

It has been somewhat of a hot topic in Norway over the years, whether Norwegian soldiers in SS-service during WW2 should have a war pension or not - when it's very likely they took part in atrocities, even though we don't have evidence for each individual.

I'll gladly join you guys in honoring specific soldiers for their deeds, but to honor all soldiers in all armies everywhere? No! Soldiers are not inherently good and honorable, no matter what nation they're from. We only keep soldiers around because we have to, and they day we can take away their guns and abolish all armies will be a good day. Sadly, I doubt that will be anytime soon, and the world is less for it.


Well, ya know? You might be right, but I try to consider that, while maybe they are bastards, and while maybe some of them do take part in atrocities, there's also a good possibility that many of those bastards didn't CHOOSE to be soldiers. I think that may play some part in some of the not so nice things.

[Damien Evans]

Qayak: given that this is Veteran's Day, Armistice Day, or Remembrance day, and Norway didn't IIRC fight in WW I, what is your intent of trying to put words in Carey's mouth?

Ryokan: IIRC, you served with UNPROFOR in Bosnia, and have shared the narrative of some interesting exploits with us. It's been a few years, but I remember you commenting on some of the actions you were engaged in. (Tanks/APC"s involved?)

As I don't know: what does your country do in terms of holidays of honoring your vets? The point of Carey's post is that

IT IS VETERAN'S DAY IN AMERICA, AND SIMILAR DAY OF NATIONAL NOTE IS ALSO HONORED IN CANADA AND THE UK.

Qayak take note the above capitalized sentence.

DR

The whole Commonwealth actually, in remembrance of the armistice of 11th November, 1918, and the soldiers who fought in that and other conflicts.

[Travis]

I'm just not seeing impersonating soldiers as that big a problem. So some guy spouts his mouth off about something he never actually did, so what? How is that different from the guy in high school who claimed to have banged the entire cheerleading squad (granted there really are soldiers and it's doubtful anyone banged the entire cheerleading squad [especially with that snooty Jennifer as squad leader who thought she was so big because she got a modeling contract that she could embarrass you in front of everyone when you asked her out (wait, what was I talking about?)])?

Personally, I put worries about this right above my worries about an invading army of Care Bears and right below my worries about toilet paper becoming sentient and enslaving human kind...possibly with the help of Care Bears.



Also a belated Veterans Day thanks to all who did serve.

[JoeyDonuts]

I'm just not seeing impersonating soldiers as that big a problem.

Some of them might be just trying to soak up the atta-boys.

A great many of them are con artists, or they'll use falsified claims of military service to ingratiate themselves into relationships, jobs, and favorable business arrangements.

Because of the deference granted to military veterans in these matters, and Special Forces operatives in particular (ability to make very difficult decisions in time-critical extreme stress situations) they will puff up their resumes and credentials to shape people's perceptions of them in a favorable way.

It will usually go hand-in-hand with an astoundingly well-researched back story. Many military members and veterans may not be able to sniff them out at first. They may know military trivia and technology better than some service members, which is easily attainable from open-source stuff.

It was easier for them to accomplish this before the dawn of the internet, when the resources to validate someone's story were still there, but would require a lot of wrangling, and usually knowing someone at the National Personnel Records Center. Even then, it would take a very long time to get the information if you got it at all.

For whatever reasons they decide to do it, be it emotional, ego, power, money - they are stealing the honor of the quiet professionals who accomplish this country's most difficult and dangerous missions.

Make no mistake - it is fraud.

So some guy spouts his mouth off about something he never actually did, so what? How is that different from the guy in high school who claimed to have banged the entire cheerleading squad?

What do you think the cheerleader story is designed to get people to think about the one that tells it?

This is way different than someone falsely claiming military experience or special ops/medals/insignia. These are substantial achievements, and it says a lot about the person that earns them. It's influencing people to grant you the same respect and think the same things about you that a person would think about someone who had actually earned them. They are dedicated, competent, work good under pressure, have personal integrity, and the like.

Personally, I put worries about this right above my worries about an invading army of Care Bears and right below my worries about toilet paper becoming sentient and enslaving human kind...possibly with the help of Care Bears.

You've got a good enough B.S. detector to sniff out one of these guys, plus you know us.

But what if your sister or a good friend started getting serious with a guy who told these kinds of stories?

Put yourself in the shoes of the people who have been conned by military phonies in the past. Then picture what it's like for those of us who have worn the uniform to hear about these people who falsely and publicly make a mockery of everything we stand for.

I hope that you never encounter one of these people, I really do.

Should you ever in the future, you know who to call.

Also a belated Veterans Day thanks to all who did serve.

Thank you for the kind words. Hearing those kinds of things is fuel in the tank for a person who's still in, and it helps those of us who used to be in remember how it felt when we first put on our dress uniforms and stood before the flags and the fanfare, surrounded by our cheering families.

At least, that's how it was for me right after boot camp. And then the glorious realization that after 10 weeks of immunizations, study, intense physical training, draconian dental work, marching, marching, and more marching, I was going to get laid.

10 weeks was the longest dry spell I'd ever had (self-flagellation notwithstanding.)

[Travis]

Yeah, I suppose someone trying to use the supposed credibility of having served to further themselves financially or politically might be construed as fraud and definitely something that should be exposed when it does happen.

Some guy spouting off in a bar is not something I consider a big deal though.

[rockinkt]

Today I stood at silent attention for two minutes to honour my country's soldiers - past and present - at our local cenotaph.
It seems so little to those who have sacrificed so much.

[JoeyDonuts]

Good reposted article from The Guardian:

Tin Soldiers (http://www.pownetwork.org/phonies/phonies86.htm)

Here's a few more from the POWNETWORK archives you might find interesting:

Paul Alan White (http://www.pownetwork.org/phonies/phonies148.htm)

Stolen Valor Info (http://www.pownetwork.org/phonies/phonies5.htm)

The information on that site is kind of a disorganized mish-mash, but there's some good sourced info on there. Links to media pieces on the phenomenon.

ETA: This document (http://www.pownetwork.org/pownet.secure1/An%20Epidemic%20of%20Military%20Imposters1.pdf) is probably the best one I've seen and really drives home the financial cost of the fraudulent claims. It also focuses on a phony who released videos detailing atrocities he supposedly committed under orders in Iraq. These videos were championed by a lot of the alternative media, those with an axe to grind with the Bush administration, and most damningly - translated into Arabic and disseminated in the Middle East, where they were taken as ironclad proof of sanctioned US atrocities.

[Ranb]

There used to be a Wall of Shame at http://cyberseals.org/SEAL%20Imposters.html . But it is no longer there. Anyone can contact the people there and request help with verifying the claimed past of a person. It is a simple matter for a current SEAL to check if someone has gone through BUD/S to be a SEAL. So simple I wonder why anyone would falsely claim they were a SEAL. :)

Ranb

[JoeyDonuts]

Ah, but then they fall back on "I worked with the SEALs."

Yeah?!? Well it ain't stopping you from wearing the trident all over your motorcycle vest, now is it?

http://www.pownetwork.org/phonies/images/ksmith1.jpg
Pictured: Jackass (http://www.pownetwork.org/phonies/phonies358.htm).

The SEALs are probably the easiest group to verify. If you suspect someone of being a phony, email the administrators over at the POWNETWORK. They'll kick it over to a former SEAL that works with them and has records of everyone who's ever gone through BUD/S and all SEALs/UDT going back a very long way.

People claiming to be Army Special Forces/Force Recon are a little tougher, as there isn't a central database maintained by the community that I'm aware of. Nevertheless, I've had great success with the communities at SOCNET.com (http://www.socnet.com)and ProfessionalSoldiers.com (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com).

[Brainster]

Brainster's rule of spotting a phony: If someone tells you they were in a supply company or a radioman, odds are they're telling the truth. If somebody tells you they were a Ranger, or a SEAL, the odds go down quite substantially.

My personal favorite was Micah Wright (http://www.democracynow.org/2003/5/28/i_you_back_the_attack_well), a guy who took a whole bunch of WWII propaganda posters and turned them into anti-war statements. He used his supposed status as a former Ranger to deflect any criticism that he was anti-American. Of course it eventually was discovered (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A60120-2004May1&notFound=true) that he had not been in the armed forces at all; his only experience with the military was ROTC in college.

Thanks to all the veterans from a non-vet!

[Darat]

From the article billw posted:

The misdemeanor offense of unauthorized wearing of military medals carries a statutory maximum penalty of one year in federal prison.

Is this true? You can be sent to prison simply for wearing some bits of metal and/or fabric? That is ridiculous (I wonder if it is the same in the UK - anyone know?)

ETA: If I'd read the entire thread before I posted then I would have noticed that this has already been answered...

[JoeyDonuts]

Is this true? You can be sent to prison simply for wearing some bits of metal and/or fabric? That is ridiculous (I wonder if it is the same in the UK - anyone know?)

In practice, if someone is guilty of only walking around in public with the medals on for purposes of self-aggrandizement or ego stroking, they'll only get heavy community service levied against them.

If they are a con artist and their fraudulent military claims (uniform, etc.) assisted in the criminal behavior, I'm sure the judge will levy that prison sentence concurrently with the other criminal stuff they'd get time for.

As pointed out in the article I linked to above, fraudulent veteran's service claims are a tremendous drain on the VA's resources here in the colonies. Millions of dollars in benefits and services are not going to people that actually need it.

This is not a simple case of going to prison for a few pieces of fabric.

Those pieces of metal and fabric carry enormous meaning.

[Darat]

Damn - making a right mess of this thread. Thanks JoeyDonuts, I've now read the rest of the thread and your posts and links.

[JoeyDonuts]

Not to fret. :D

I haven't really heard that much about military phonies overseas...

That could be because of the large value and reverence for the armed forces in the United States.

From what I've experienced of the U.K. and its natives, some git running about in camoflauge claiming to be Special Air Service and telling all kinds of tall tales would probably be ignored and laughed at. At the very least, I doubt that sort of thing would impress your average Britisher.

Might get more traction in Helensburgh after a few pints.

[gumboot]

If so, what about wearing your parents or grandparents medals at remembrance ceremonies? (My Mum proudly wore her Mum's WWII service medals every ANZAC day.)


I can't speak for US law, but I seem to remember you're in New Zealand, and I can provide some information on that matter.

4A Offences in respect of military decorations

(1) In this section the term military decoration means any medal, clasp, badge, ribbon, stripe, emblem, or decoration issued, supplied, or authorised, or purporting or reputed to be issued, supplied, or authorised, by a naval, military, or air force authority, whether in New Zealand or in any other Commonwealth country; but does not include an ordinary regimental badge or any brooch or ornament representing such a badge.

(2) Every person commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $500—
(a) Who represents himself, contrary to the fact, to be a person who is or has been entitled to wear or use any military decoration; or
(b) Who wears or uses any medal, clasp, badge, ribbon, stripe, emblem, or decoration that is intended or is likely, by reason of its appearance or in any other manner, to cause any person to believe, contrary to the fact, that it is a military decoration; or
(c) Who, without reasonable excuse, supplies or offers to supply—
(i) Any military decoration; or
(ii) Any medal, clasp, badge, ribbon, stripe, emblem, or decoration that is intended or is likely, by reason of its appearance or in any other manner, to cause any person to believe, contrary to the fact, that it is a military decoration—
to any person who is not authorised to wear or use that military decoration.
(3) In a prosecution under this section, the burden of proving that any person is authorised to wear or use any military decoration shall be on the defendant.

-Military Decorations and Distinctive Badges Act 1918

Obviously New Zealand is a common law country, and the letter of the law is not the end of the matter. In New Zealand it is established that relatives of veterans may wear their relatives war medals on the opposite side of the chest on specific memorial occasions such as ANZAC Day. Thus relatives will march in the ANZAC Day parades in place of veterans who are either dead or no longer able to march, and these people can be distinguished by the side of the chest the medals are worn on.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Any military?

Only those that observe Armistice Day or derivatives thereof. It'll be a cold day in hell before I honor any of the Kaiser's Huns! ;)

I would hope they don't put restrictions on purchasing military surplus clothing. It's all I wear. No insignia, of course, but BDU clothing is comfortable, durable and cheap. Just because some jackasses act like idiots is no reason to ruin things for everyone.

Before I got too fat to button it, I'd wear my BDU top on Memorial day and around town periodically. It still has my Army and name tag, 2LT bar and Artillery banch insignia on it - all of which I earned even if I never did anything glorious while wearing them. I would never put any insignia I didn't earn (airborne wings, CIB, etc.) on it.

(an aside about this vs. impersonators - no one is going to confuse an out of shape 41 year old with longish hair, wearing a 2LT bar on a faded and obsolete summer woodland BDU shirt with someone who had a more glorious career than my non one was)

Brainster's rule of spotting a phony: If someone tells you they were in a supply company or a radioman, odds are they're telling the truth. If somebody tells you they were a Ranger, or a SEAL, the odds go down quite substantially.

Same here. Not that I haven't met some real G.I. Joes, but my skeptisense shuts off when someone tells me they were a REMF. Even though it sometimes takes a while I always try and explain my particulars...

My personal favorite was Micah Wright, a guy who took a whole bunch of WWII propaganda posters and turned them into anti-war statements. He used his supposed status as a former Ranger to deflect any criticism that he was anti-American. Of course it eventually was discovered that he had not been in the armed forces at all; his only experience with the military was ROTC in college.

Thanks to all the veterans from a non-vet!

@ bold :mad:

;)

[gumboot]

The whole Commonwealth actually, in remembrance of the armistice of 11th November, 1918, and the soldiers who fought in that and other conflicts.


Although it's not nearly as widely observed in Australia and New Zealand as we have our own remembrance day. However I observed a minute silence at the 11th hour when I was in Australia yesterday, and was pleased to hear the announcer at the train station ask everyone to do so.

[Carnivore]

I can't speak for US law, but I seem to remember you're in New Zealand, and I can provide some information on that matter.



Obviously New Zealand is a common law country, and the letter of the law is not the end of the matter. In New Zealand it is established that relatives of veterans may wear their relatives war medals on the opposite side of the chest on specific memorial occasions such as ANZAC Day. Thus relatives will march in the ANZAC Day parades in place of veterans who are either dead or no longer able to march, and these people can be distinguished by the side of the chest the medals are worn on.

Ah! Thanks for clearing that up for me.

[Careyp74]

Hello again, Careyp74. About the war between the states...this past Memorial Day, one of the oldest running Memorial Day Parades, in Ironton, OH, did what I consider to be an awful, awful thing. Like you, I think soldiers of all conflicts deserve remembrance. But this year, Ironton refused to allow Confederate reenactors (representing the Sons of Confederate Veterans) participate in their parade. Union reenactors were fine. Confederates were banned. The public debate was infuriating. On the one side you had people like you and I, who want to honor all soldiers, but on the other you had people saying that Confederates were bigots (all the same old tired ignorant arguments) and were a disgrace to our nation, blah blah blah. In the end, the city still refused to let them participate. It was quite upsetting.

I'm not so sure we've come as far as we like to think we have. But today, in this country, I think all of our veterans deserve to be honored. If it were international veterans day, I'd say we should recognize international veterans. I've never served, but I suspect that a soldier is a soldier, no matter what side they fight for. I don't see it as being an easy life. I couldn't myself do what soldiers are ordered sometimes to do. But I do recognize that, all across this globe, much of what we have achieved is due to soldiers of all nationalities. Where we fail, it is due to governments. In wars, we should never hate the soldiers. They simply do their jobs. And thank goodness someone does those jobs.

Well that's horrible. Many of those probably great grandparents that fought in those battles. Ohio is one of those border states where you will see a lot of clashing. You dip further down then Penn. and we have Maryland as a buffer.

[Darth Rotor]

The whole Commonwealth actually, in remembrance of the armistice of 11th November, 1918, and the soldiers who fought in that and other conflicts.

Thank you. :)

[Careyp74]

What do you think of actual veterans who exaggerate their rank, job or exploits in the military? I'm reminded of the one-time president of Lotus Development Corp, who used to regale customers and others with his stories of being a Marine fighter pilot. His resume says he retired a captain. Turns out he was an air traffic controller and left as a 1st leutenant.

This was among much other made up personal history -- Orphan! It's so cliched.

Just as bad! I have never desired to be a hero, and don't know what I would do in different situations. I think it takes away from all of those who HAVE put their life on the line, not that they did it for the honor, but they still deserve the recognition, and people like that president, and others, dilute the worth of those brave men.

[Careyp74]

A word on Stolen Valor -

Though the letter of the law states that any fraudulent claim, written or verbal, to any medals or insignia is punishable under Title 18 U.S.C., in practice the only ones that ever get prosecuted are the ones that are known to publicly wear uniforms/medals/insignia and are using their false identities for some kind of personal gain.

Your internet tough guys and the weepy older guy in the VFW hall scamming drinks with his POW/MIA motorcycle jacket won't usually see any kind of legal action unless their fakery becomes high-profile.

You'll notice that nobody ever claims to be an out of shape National Guard file clerk. Most of the time the fakers will claim the fantastic - service in one of the service's elite Special Forces, clandestine work for the CIA, black ops, and will have no qualms telling you all about everyone they've killed.

That's the first giveaway - the profuse public braggarting.

The kind of men and women who have had actually "been there, done that" will not casually tell strangers about their exploits. They're known as "quiet professionals" for a reason.

For the minor cases, the community polices itself through sites like pownetwork.org.

Welcome to the thread, Joey. Seems you have had your own personal battle with this topic. Keep up the good work.

[Careyp74]

I can't speak for US law, but I seem to remember you're in New Zealand, and I can provide some information on that matter.



Obviously New Zealand is a common law country, and the letter of the law is not the end of the matter. In New Zealand it is established that relatives of veterans may wear their relatives war medals on the opposite side of the chest on specific memorial occasions such as ANZAC Day. Thus relatives will march in the ANZAC Day parades in place of veterans who are either dead or no longer able to march, and these people can be distinguished by the side of the chest the medals are worn on.

Good information. I feel that moms of those killed in action deserve as much praise as the soldiers, and so one that wears her son's medals on such an occasion wouldn't bother me at all.

[Sabrina]

Just as bad! I have never desired to be a hero, and don't know what I would do in different situations. I think it takes away from all of those who HAVE put their life on the line, not that they did it for the honor, but they still deserve the recognition, and people like that president, and others, dilute the worth of those brave men.

I have to agree with this wholeheartedly. Most of the time, unless a topic comes up that requires my participation from a military perspective in the conversation, I don't spend a whole lot of time talking about my military experience. I happily put it on my resume, and it certainly helped me get the job I have now, but otherwise it's not something I bring up in conversation just to stroke my own ego. I had the pleasure of working for a company that had a lot of military folks, reserve, retirees, and veterans, and apart from some reminiscing at company functions if it was discovered you served in the same location, we didn't bring it up. We were all proud of our service, but we didn't feel the need to stroke our own egos.

People who do that sort of irritate me, largely because I'm of the opinion that no matter WHAT your job in the military, if you served with honor, you deserve respect. Everyone, down to the last E-1, is an essential part of the military machine, and giving respect to one soldier over another just because the first served in one of the Special Forces units is silly to me, because the other soldier served a valued purpose as well no matter what job they held. One of the very first things I learned as an officer was to listen to my NCOs, because they had been in longer than I had and knew a heck of a lot more than I did. Why should I get more respect simply because I wear an officer rank? Same thing went for my soldiers; I treated them with the respect they were due as members of the US Military, and in return I got good service and good work out of them.

What a lot of these scammers don't seem to understand is that everyone in the military, down to the file clerk in the records room, gets much the same training and is expected to follow the same requirement to lay down their life if necessary to protect the freedoms of this country. Yeah sure, Special Forces, Rangers, SEALs, Green Berets; they get specialized training and are more likely to be the ones in a firefight, but that doesn't negate the bravery and sacrifice of that lowly file clerk who, upon seeing his brethren in trouble, grabs his weapon and goes to help them and possibly gets killed or injured in the process. Or the cook who throws himself on a grenade that's been rolled into the food tent so as to contain the blast and prevent as much injury as possible to his fellow soldiers.

Bottom line is, if you've served, I don't care what your job was, I will give you respect for your service every day of my life, because you recognized a need for your service and felt it was the right thing to do. Military service isn't for everyone; I'd be the first to admit that, but for those who do it and do it with honor, I will be the first to salute you if we meet, whether I outrank you or not.

[Ryokan]

Qayak: given that this is Veteran's Day, Armistice Day, or Remembrance day, and Norway didn't IIRC fight in WW I, what is your intent of trying to put words in Carey's mouth?

Ryokan: IIRC, you served with UNPROFOR in Bosnia, and have shared the narrative of some interesting exploits with us. It's been a few years, but I remember you commenting on some of the actions you were engaged in. (Tanks/APC"s involved?)

I'll admit to not knowing the details of why Veteran's Day is celebrated. You're right, Norway didn't take part in WW1, which is probably why we don't celebrate it. We have no similar day at all. We do sort of celebrate May 8th, the end of WW2 in Europe, but we simply celebrate the facts of the day, we go no further.

Although I love the idea of the UN, and will support the institution any day, UN soldiers are a joke. They're pacifistic with guns, and they haven't really made a difference anywhere they've been. That's why I've always avoided the UN forces, and why I signed up real fast when NATO took over in Bosnia. So I wasn't in UNPROFOR, I was in SFOR. That also means I wasn't there for the worst period, the war was in reality over. But even though there wasn't a war, there wasn't peace either, and I saw enough.

While I agree with a lot of what you say, or at least the premise of it, I think a large part of the disagreement we're seeing in this thread may boil down to cultural differences.

I think you're very right about that.

Well, ya know? You might be right, but I try to consider that, while maybe they are bastards, and while maybe some of them do take part in atrocities, there's also a good possibility that many of those bastards didn't CHOOSE to be soldiers. I think that may play some part in some of the not so nice things.

Again, that excuse died at Nuremberg.

[Careyp74]

That last post by Sabrina brought back one memory, one of the only stories I tell from my service.

During one patrol we had a bunch of Navy Seals on board. They had all of their gear, rafts, and what not. The purpose was for training. We were going to surface, have the seals go topside, and assist in getting the rafts ready for deployment.

On the day we were going to do the exercise, there was worry that the sea would be too rough for the training. The sea state was barely a two, meaning that waves were out there, but not anything a toddler couldn't handle with a pair of swimmies.

Now, I understand safety and all, however, these exercises are for practice, and real life situations cannot be put on hold because of unsatisfactory conditions.

Well, the seal leader, upon surfacing, looked out of the sail, saw the conditions, and called off the exercise.

With the boat already surfaced, and nothing else to do, the Captain allowed a swim call. We all got our trunks on and stormed the deck for a day in the sun and sea.


What was the point of this story, oh yeah. Our lowly E-1 clerk assistant was up there with us battling the sea, while the seals were below decks re-storing their gear.

[geni]

From the article billw posted:

The misdemeanor offense of unauthorized wearing of military medals carries a statutory maximum penalty of one year in federal prison.

Is this true? You can be sent to prison simply for wearing some bits of metal and/or fabric? That is ridiculous (I wonder if it is the same in the UK - anyone know?)

ETA: If I'd read the entire thread before I posted then I would have noticed that this has already been answered...

It's entirely legal in the UK. For example:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8133050.stm

ARRSE track them from time to time:

http://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/Category:Infamous_Walts

[Careyp74]

It's entirely legal in the UK. For example:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8133050.stm

ARRSE track them from time to time:

http://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/Category:Infamous_Walts

I did not see anything in the two links that sets precedent to the act as being entirely legal. The fact that he was on trial and got a suspended sentence for the false claims to benefits gives us reason to think that lesser charges of impersonation may have been overlooked.

[geni]

I did not see anything in the two links that sets precedent to the act as being entirely legal. The fact that he was on trial and got a suspended sentence for the false claims to benefits gives us reason to think that lesser charges of impersonation may have been overlooked.

How would you get a precedent? There is no law against it. The CPS is not in the habit of takeing people to court for random non offences.


There's a reason there is a (foolish) attempt to change the law:

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Stolen-honour/

[quixotecoyote]

How would you get a precedent? There is no law against it. The CPS is not in the habit of takeing people to court for random non offences.


There's a reason there is a (foolish) attempt to change the law:

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Stolen-honour/

I had already opened a tab from another thread, so I got very confused when I thought you were referring us here:
http://www.dokimos.org/ajff/

[Careyp74]

How would you get a precedent? There is no law against it. The CPS is not in the habit of takeing people to court for random non offences.


There's a reason there is a (foolish) attempt to change the law:

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Stolen-honour/

I am replying to your examples. You said it is legal, and give examples why it is legal. There are no examples of why it is legal in your links. Precedence for something being legal does not need an illegality first, especially when dealing with laws that are not clear as to the legality.

[drkitten]

I am replying to your examples. You said it is legal, and give examples why it is legal. There are no examples of why it is legal in your links. Precedence for something being legal does not need an illegality first, especially when dealing with laws that are not clear as to the legality.

I would strongly advise rephrasing this post, as it's completely unintelligible.

I'm fairly confident that you're wrong, but it's hard to tell.

So I'll simply ask a direct question. Given that the UK (like most civilized societies) has a principle that things are legal unless there is a statute or case law that forbids them, how would you prove that something is legal? There are no laws saying that it's legal to do that, and in the absence of any foolish prosecutions, how would you get a case to cite?

I submit that we've got strong evidence that this is legal by the fact that none of the people "exposing" Jack Livesey are suggesting that he should be taken to trial for his impersonations.

[Darth Rotor]

So I wasn't in UNPROFOR, I was in SFOR. That also means I wasn't there for the worst period, the war was in reality over.
Please accept my sincerest apologies. SFOR and IFOR were the op when I was involved with matters Bosnia, but not on the ground.

Heh, I helped write part of the Op Plan for SFOR. A very, very small part. Probably not anything you were involved in, unless you were mine sweeping in Split

[Denver]

Some of them might be just trying to soak up the atta-boys.

A great many of them are con artists, or they'll use falsified claims of military service to ingratiate themselves into relationships, jobs, and favorable business arrangements.
...


I think when found out, these people should be summarily drafted.

[rockinkt]

I have to agree with this wholeheartedly. Most of the time, unless a topic comes up that requires my participation from a military perspective in the conversation, I don't spend a whole lot of time talking about my military experience. I happily put it on my resume, and it certainly helped me get the job I have now, but otherwise it's not something I bring up in conversation just to stroke my own ego. I had the pleasure of working for a company that had a lot of military folks, reserve, retirees, and veterans, and apart from some reminiscing at company functions if it was discovered you served in the same location, we didn't bring it up. We were all proud of our service, but we didn't feel the need to stroke our own egos.

People who do that sort of irritate me, largely because I'm of the opinion that no matter WHAT your job in the military, if you served with honor, you deserve respect. Everyone, down to the last E-1, is an essential part of the military machine, and giving respect to one soldier over another just because the first served in one of the Special Forces units is silly to me, because the other soldier served a valued purpose as well no matter what job they held. One of the very first things I learned as an officer was to listen to my NCOs, because they had been in longer than I had and knew a heck of a lot more than I did. Why should I get more respect simply because I wear an officer rank? Same thing went for my soldiers; I treated them with the respect they were due as members of the US Military, and in return I got good service and good work out of them.

What a lot of these scammers don't seem to understand is that everyone in the military, down to the file clerk in the records room, gets much the same training and is expected to follow the same requirement to lay down their life if necessary to protect the freedoms of this country. Yeah sure, Special Forces, Rangers, SEALs, Green Berets; they get specialized training and are more likely to be the ones in a firefight, but that doesn't negate the bravery and sacrifice of that lowly file clerk who, upon seeing his brethren in trouble, grabs his weapon and goes to help them and possibly gets killed or injured in the process. Or the cook who throws himself on a grenade that's been rolled into the food tent so as to contain the blast and prevent as much injury as possible to his fellow soldiers.

Bottom line is, if you've served, I don't care what your job was, I will give you respect for your service every day of my life, because you recognized a need for your service and felt it was the right thing to do. Military service isn't for everyone; I'd be the first to admit that, but for those who do it and do it with honor, I will be the first to salute you if we meet, whether I outrank you or not.

Excellent post!

[Ryokan]

Heh, I helped write part of the Op Plan for SFOR. A very, very small part. Probably not anything you were involved in, unless you were mine sweeping in Split

I wasn't. Mechanized infantry up north.

[JoeyDonuts]

I think when found out, these people should be summarily drafted.

Hell no. Nothing's worse than knowing the guy behind you on a fire party is there because he doesn't have a choice.

A great many of the evolutions aboard ship are dangerous in nature. Getting underway, receiving stores, weapon PACFIREs, replenishment-at-sea, and combating fire and other mass casualty events are very hazardous.

People get hurt or worse if you're not in the game. I was on the SSDF (ship's self-defense force). This unit would be the first responders to a security alert or to repel boarders. We did a lot of small-unit tactics including room clearing and dynamic entry situations. Nowhere near to the degree that SEALs and even MOUT gets into, but I've had some of the same training nevertheless. If the SSDF was ever called upon to respond to a real-life emergency involving the probable use of deadly force, the last person I want in my team is a freaking hero that's going to charge into a room and go Rambo.

In this situation, as in countless others in the military, whether or not you go home to your wife depends on the guy next to you having his **** in gear.

My take on it as a former First Class Petty Officer is this: If you don't want to be here, I don't want you here - especially if "here" is an inherently hazardous situation. You can go to the scullery and wash trays, bitching about how much the Navy sucks.

[Careyp74]

So I'll simply ask a direct question. Given that the UK (like most civilized societies) has a principle that things are legal unless there is a statute or case law that forbids them, how would you prove that something is legal?

That is what I was saying in the post before the one you quoted me on. Just because it was not stated as being against the law, does not mean that it ISN'T against the law. Her links do not prove her statement.


There are no laws saying that it's legal to do that, and in the absence of any foolish prosecutions, how would you get a case to cite?
If you look at my post at 2:01 PM, I bring up precedence specifically because there is no law stating that you have the right to impersonate military personnel, so her links would not be enough to set a precedence that you can, based on no charges being brought up against Jack.


I submit that we've got strong evidence that this is legal by the fact that none of the people "exposing" Jack Livesey are suggesting that he should be taken to trial for his impersonations.

That may very well be the case.

[Careyp74]

Hell no. Nothing's worse than knowing the guy behind you on a fire party is there because he doesn't have a choice.


How about two of your mates in boot camp choosing military over prosecution? At least they weren't subs. Hey, what commands were you at?

[JoeyDonuts]

I already passed this on to Careyp via PM, but for purposes of the thread I was stationed on the USS Barry from 2003-2008.

http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/703/group2tp5.jpg
Cross-decking onboard the Russian destroyer Admiral Levchenko. I'm on the far right.

http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/7097/n65416549644166075192.jpg
Off the coast of Beirut during evacuation operations in 2006.

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/6170/n65416549644166561940.jpg
Receiving the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal. Or was that the Expeditionary Medal? I don't really remember.

http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/92/n6541654964416659461.jpg
Right before manning the rails at S&A detail before anchoring in Lagos, Nigeria

[qayak]

Just because it was not stated as being against the law, does not mean that it ISN'T against the law.

If you look at my post at 2:01 PM, I bring up precedence specifically because there is no law stating that you have the right to impersonate military personnel, so her links would not be enough to set a precedence that you can, based on no charges being brought up against Jack.

I don't get what you are saying. It appears that you are trying to tell us that something is illegal even if there is no law against it. Can you explain how that could be possible?

[JoeyDonuts]

I'm not sure how basic rights are granted to citizens in the UK, but I have to side with qayak here. If a particular action is not expressly forbidden by any known law, and does not violate any existing statue in the area where it is performed, then I see no question as to the legality of it in a free society.

The question of whether or not it SHOULD be illegal is a different one entirely, but from what I've seen presented in this thread with regards to UK law, I'd have to say that wearing of different medals that a person hasn't earned is not illegal.

Impersonating an officer of the UK military for personal gain is a different legal question.

For our UK friends: What would happen if someone was to falsely claim they were KBE/OBE, etc? Granted, this is easy enough to verify as the recipients of these awards are publicly available, are they not?

[Graham2001]

ETA: This document (http://www.pownetwork.org/pownet.secure1/An%20Epidemic%20of%20Military%20Imposters1.pdf) is probably the best one I've seen and really drives home the financial cost of the fraudulent claims. It also focuses on a phony who released videos detailing atrocities he supposedly committed under orders in Iraq. These videos were championed by a lot of the alternative media, those with an axe to grind with the Bush administration, and most damningly - translated into Arabic and disseminated in the Middle East, where they were taken as ironclad proof of sanctioned US atrocities.

Or [/URL][url=http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=64837]Lauro Chavez (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3114317&postcount=9), who made all sorts of wild claims related to 9/11 'Truth'. (See Also: Veterans for 911Truth (http://www.v911t.org/SergeantLauroChavez.php))

[Akhenaten]

I already passed this on to Careyp via PM, but for purposes of the thread I was stationed on the USS Barry from 2003-2008.

http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/703/group2tp5.jpg
Cross-decking onboard the Russian destroyer Admiral Levchenko. I'm on the far right.





Hi Joey,

Just a quick hello and thanks for posting your pics again, especially this one.

I remember seeing it the first time and thinking. "Ooh, I must remember not piss the Russian Navy off."


Cheers mate,

Dave

[JoeyDonuts]

I remember seeing it the first time and thinking. "Ooh, I must remember not piss the Russian Navy off."

I'm not a tall guy (obviously. 5'6") But that dude between me and FC1 there goes by the name of "Sasha" and he was an enormous bear of a human being.

Fun day. We got to go through the engine room, saw the officer's wardroom, and the whole thing turned into a damn uniform item swap meet. I made it out of there with one of the garrison caps with the hammer/sickle on it.

:D

[Careyp74]

I don't get what you are saying. It appears that you are trying to tell us that something is illegal even if there is no law against it. Can you explain how that could be possible?

I don't think it can, so I can't tell you how.

The first part should be easy enough to understand. Ask me if you don't and I will explain it.

The second part is about her use of the article to prove that you can impersonate military.

[Cayvmann]

Yeah, I suppose someone trying to use the supposed credibility of having served to further themselves financially or politically might be construed as fraud and definitely something that should be exposed when it does happen.

Some guy spouting off in a bar is not something I consider a big deal though.

Nor should you.


It's sad and pathetic, but really prison for playing soldier? You can't steal valor anyway.

[Careyp74]

I'm not sure how basic rights are granted to citizens in the UK, but I have to side with qayak here. If a particular action is not expressly forbidden by any known law, and does not violate any existing statue in the area where it is performed, then I see no question as to the legality of it in a free society.

The question of whether or not it SHOULD be illegal is a different one entirely, but from what I've seen presented in this thread with regards to UK law, I'd have to say that wearing of different medals that a person hasn't earned is not illegal.

Impersonating an officer of the UK military for personal gain is a different legal question.

For our UK friends: What would happen if someone was to falsely claim they were KBE/OBE, etc? Granted, this is easy enough to verify as the recipients of these awards are publicly available, are they not?

First of all, you have to understand that qayak likes to put words into people's mouths. Either he doesn't understand what someone is trying to say, or he does it on purpose.

Second, anything I said dealing with the UK was in reply to Geni creating law by way of news articles, and not any belief I have about the laws themselves.

[BobTheDonkey]

I'm not a tall guy (obviously. 5'6") But that dude between me and FC1 there goes by the name of "Sasha" and he was an enormous bear of a human being.

Fun day. We got to go through the engine room, saw the officer's wardroom, and the whole thing turned into a damn uniform item swap meet. I made it out of there with one of the garrison caps with the hammer/sickle on it.

:D

:D Typical military swap meet, eh? I remember my flyer friends from when I was maintenance on the E-3 at Tinker. Those guys always had dozens of spare patches in their bags when they went TDY so they'd always be able to swap.


As a former SSgt (E5), I completely agree about not wanting anyone to be forced to be in my workcenter. Just because most day-to-day ops at home base aren't likely to get the adrenaline pumping, when the day/time comes that I need someone to have my back, the last person I want there is someone who doesn't want to be there.

[qayak]

First of all, you have to understand that qayak likes to put words into people's mouths. Either he doesn't understand what someone is trying to say, or he does it on purpose.

Hmmmm . . . it would seem that there were several people who didn't understand what you wrote so I doubt the miscommunication is my fault but, whatever floats your boat.

[Careyp74]

Hmmmm . . . it would seem that there were several people who didn't understand what you wrote so I doubt the miscommunication is my fault but, whatever floats your boat.

"It appears that you are trying to tell us that something is illegal even if there is no law against it. Can you explain how that could be possible?"

Who else put these words into my mouth?

"Exactly. Why is it that some young, patriotic person from one country is more noble than a young, patriotic person from another?

Unless of course one believes that every action their country has been involved in has been for a noble cause and, no other country, in any action they are involved in, can make that claim."

Who else put THESE words in my mouth?

[qayak]

"It appears that you are trying to tell us that something is illegal even if there is no law against it. Can you explain how that could be possible?"

Who else put these words into my mouth?

To recap: Those were my words and they were in response to your words which were, "Just because it was not stated as being against the law, does not mean that it ISN'T against the law."

"Exactly. Why is it that some young, patriotic person from one country is more noble than a young, patriotic person from another?

Unless of course one believes that every action their country has been involved in has been for a noble cause and, no other country, in any action they are involved in, can make that claim."

Who else put THESE words in my mouth?

These are also my words. Are you having trouble following the discussion? Why can't you differentiate my words from your own?

These words of mine were also in response to your comment about only honouring members of the US military to which you later added, "and our allies."

I just provided examples of when other, equally deserving people can and are honoured. But hey, if you need a pat on the back for doing the job you volunteered for, HOORAY, FOR YOU!!!

Maybe it is just me but when I was a kid Remembrance Day was about the people who "fought and died" for their country. I even remember one WWI vet who informed me that he was there for the same reason I was, to honour the people who fell. He stated that he wasn't to be honoured because it was his honour to make it out alive and enjoy the fruits of his friend's sacrifice. "It's only about those who fell" was how he put it.

Today, everyone thinks they deserve to be honoured even if the most action they saw was wiping their butt in the latrine.

[JoeyDonuts]

Dear god it's got silly in here.

[JimBenArm]

It's about to get sillier. I'm here, now.
Hey, Careyp74, did you say you were a bubblehead?
What boat(s)? When did you qual?

[gumboot]

I hate to spoil your fun guys, but there actually is a UK law that explicitly forbids the wearing of medals you did not earn.

Army Act, 1955

Part V General Provisions
Offences relating to military matters punishable by civil courts

197. Unauthorised use of and dealing in decorations, etc.
— (1) Any person who, in the United Kingdom or in any colony,—
(a) without authority uses or wears any military decoration, or any badge, wound stripe or emblem supplied or authorised by [F1 the Defence Council], or
(b) uses or wears any decoration, badge, wound stripe, or emblem so nearly resembling any military decoration, or any such badge, stripe or emblem as aforesaid, as to be calculated to deceive, or
(c) falsely represents himself to be a person who is or has been entitled to use or wear any such decoration, badge, stripe or emblem as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection,
shall be guilty of an offence against this section:

As for punishment?

(3) Any person guilty of an offence against this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a finenot exceeding [F2 level 3 on the standard scale] or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to both such a fine and such imprisonment.

So perhaps the silliness can end now, hrm?

[Eyeron]

Apparently, it is illegal to impersonate military personnel in America as this article shows:

(Los Angeles, CA) -- A California man is learning the hard way that it's illegal to wear military medals a person hasn't earned.

Thirty-nine-year-old Steven Burton of Palm Springs is facing criminal charges for wearing medals including the Purple Heart and the Navy Cross, despite never having served in any branch of the U.S. military.

Burton is charged with unauthorized wearing of military medals which could bring a year in federal prison if he's convicted.

http://mystateline.com/content/fulltext/?cid=115162

And:

912. Officer or employee of the United States

Whoever falsely assumes or pretends to be an officer or employee acting under the authority of the United States or any department, agency or officer thereof, and acts as such, or in such pretended character demands or obtains any money, paper, document, or thing of value, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

From the US Code:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00000912----000-.html

In America we also have the Stolen Valor Act of 2005.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Valor_Act_of_2005

[Travis]

Well, that seals it. I've seen lots of movies where actors are wearing medals that they clearly didn't earn themselves. Lock 'em up.



It saddens me that somewhere someone will take me seriously.

[JoeyDonuts]

Well, that seals it. I've seen lots of movies where actors are wearing medals that they clearly didn't earn themselves. Lock 'em up.



It saddens me that somewhere someone will take me seriously.

Believe it or not, Curtis Jackson (other wise known as 50 cent) is listed on POWNETWORK's Hall of Shame. I guess he did a performance in a Marine Corps dress uniform.

[BobTheDonkey]

Believe it or not, Curtis Jackson (other wise known as 50 cent) is listed on POWNETWORK's Hall of Shame. I guess he did a performance in a Marine Corps dress uniform.

In a movie, playing a role...or on stage at one of his shows?

I would say there's quite a difference there, but that might just be me :)

[Careyp74]

To recap: Those were my words and they were in response to your words which were, "Just because it was not stated as being against the law, does not mean that it ISN'T against the law."



These are also my words. Are you having trouble following the discussion? Why can't you differentiate my words from your own?

These words of mine were also in response to your comment about only honouring members of the US military to which you later added, "and our allies."

I just provided examples of when other, equally deserving people can and are honoured. But hey, if you need a pat on the back for doing the job you volunteered for, HOORAY, FOR YOU!!!

Maybe it is just me but when I was a kid Remembrance Day was about the people who "fought and died" for their country. I even remember one WWI vet who informed me that he was there for the same reason I was, to honour the people who fell. He stated that he wasn't to be honoured because it was his honour to make it out alive and enjoy the fruits of his friend's sacrifice. "It's only about those who fell" was how he put it.

Today, everyone thinks they deserve to be honoured even if the most action they saw was wiping their butt in the latrine.

And there you go again! At what point did I say I wanted to be honored? You insist on continually putting words in my mouth, and when I call you on it you take it as an opportunity to do it again!

[Careyp74]

It's about to get sillier. I'm here, now.
Hey, Careyp74, did you say you were a bubblehead?
What boat(s)? When did you qual?

Qualified July 19, 1996 onboard the USS Providence. The only boat I served on.

[king catfish]

Any military?
Is that your finger inside the trigger guard in that avatar?:eek:

[Akhenaten]

Is that your finger inside the trigger guard in that avatar?:eek:





You can't see the vicious møøse just about to attack from out-of-shot.

[qayak]

And there you go again! At what point did I say I wanted to be honored? You insist on continually putting words in my mouth, and when I call you on it you take it as an opportunity to do it again!

Really? I mean, you claim to have been part of the US military and you claim that the US military should be honoured (then amended to include US allies) so why are you bitchin' when I give you a "hooray?"

[lionking]

One such imposter in Australia is to feel the full force of the law.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/fake-pow-will-plead-guilty-to-fraud-20091106-i250.html

Yes, I know it's not for impersonating a POW per se, but in reaping the benefits a someone who served.


THE prisoner-of-war impostor Rex Crane, who dishonestly received $400,000 in war pension payments, will plead guilty to fraud and deception.
The former federal president of the Ex-Prisoners of War Association of Australia appeared in Brisbane Magistrates Court yesterday charged with defrauding the Commonwealth and gaining financial advantage through deception.
His lawyer said Arthur Rex Crane would plead guilty to both charges. Mr Crane, 83, shielded his face from the media outside the court.
He claimed to have been one of Australia's youngest POWs, incarcerated by the Japanese in 1942 when he was 15.


Mr Crane in fact spent World War II in Prospect, Adelaide, and was attending Adelaide High School in 1941. He never served in the military.

[Akhenaten]

There must be some hope for me after all. I find that sort of thing reprehensible, both for the nature of the deception and for the theft.

It's a bit of a pity they're not allowed to give him a taste of what he's been claiming.

[BenRayfield]

People who would kill to make sure another country does not have nuclear weapons, and simultaneously to defend their own countrys right to have nuclear weapons, are hypocrites and are nothing to be proud about.

[lionking]

People who would kill to make sure another country does not have nuclear weapons, and simultaneously to defend their own countrys right to have nuclear weapons, are hypocrites and are nothing to be proud about. Most people in militaries deserve no respect.
Nothing better to do than make trolling posts like this? You are way off topic in any case.

[Akhenaten]

People who would kill to make sure another country does not have nuclear weapons, and simultaneously to defend their own countrys right to have nuclear weapons, are hypocrites and are nothing to be proud about. Most people in militaries deserve no respect.





Lucky for you, my friend, that we do what we do anyway.

[BenRayfield]

The first post in this thread is:

People who impersonate military personnel should be locked up
Today is a proud day for those who have served in the military, and there are many out there today making an effort to commend those that have served. I have been aware for some time now that there are many people out there that for some sick reason find it fun to either dress up as a currently serving military member, of who claims veteran status without any prior service.

For all those here that have served, thank you.

For all those here that have not, but are acting like they have, watch out.

Therefore my post is on topic.

I spoke to strongly when I wrote "Most people in militaries deserve no respect" so I edited my post to remove that, but I stand by the sentence preceding it.

A military person is one who is trained to kill without asking why.

A terrorist is a person who more often kills because he is angry about something. At least terrorist know why they kill.

I don't like either one of them.

[Akhenaten]

The first post in this thread is:

Therefore my post is on topic.





This one isn't, lacking a quote as it does.


I spoke to strongly when I wrote "Most people in militaries deserve no respect" so I edited my post to remove that, but I stand by the sentence preceding it.





You edited your post after I called you on it. Shame you can't edit mine, isn't it? Repeating the statement after removing it seems both senseless and apt.


A military person is one who is trained to kill without asking why.





Drivel

A terrorist is a person who more often kills because he is angry about something. At least terrorist know why they kill.





Drivel²


I don't like either one of them.





Fortunately, your thoughts on the matter as presented here are irrelevant.

[BenRayfield]

Akhenaten said:
Lucky for you, my friend, that we do what we do anyway.

In some ways I agree. I'm not a pacifist. If your country is attacked, you should defend it. If somebody is going to attack your country, you should get in their face and make them change their mind. But most of what governments command militaries to do is not for those reasons.

[Akhenaten]

Akhenaten said:


In some ways I agree. I'm not a pacifist. If your country is attacked, you should defend it. If somebody is going to attack your country, you should get in their face and make them change their mind. But most of what governments command militaries to do is not for those reasons.





This is nothing like your original statement, but since it's an improvement you can have a pass for now.


Learn to quote properly, lest people think you are intellectually lazy.

[BenRayfield]

This is nothing like your original statement, but since it's an improvement you can have a pass for now.

My statements are not inconsistent.

Military people are trained to kill without asking why, because:

* efficiency and organization of the chain of command

* So they do not object to the reasons for killing, like when George W Bush set up a jail in Cuba ("Guantanamo Bay" I heard it was called) for the purpose of doing things that would have been illegal in USA in that jail. Because the jail was not in USA, nobody there had to obey USA law, Bush said. Bush directly worked against the laws of USA in expanding the USA government and is therefore a treasonist. He commanded militaries to help him do it, and they did not ask why.

[Akhenaten]

What does the above have to do with the thread topic?

[BenRayfield]

What does the above have to do with the thread topic?

There is a partial contradiction in these 2 quotes:

The first post which should define the thread topic:
For all those here that have served, thank you.

contradicts this fact about the USA military helping to commit treason without
asking why:
* So they do not object to the reasons for killing, like when George W Bush set up a jail in Cuba ("Guantanamo Bay" I heard it was called) for the purpose of doing things that would have been illegal in USA in that jail. Because the jail was not in USA, nobody there had to obey USA law, Bush said. Bush directly worked against the laws of USA in expanding the USA government and is therefore a treasonist. He commanded militaries to help him do it, and they did not ask why.

To all military people who try their best to defend and predict dangers to their country and react in that way, I thank you.

To all military people who, theoretically if they had been asked to commit treason (but not described that way, described as "defend your country" etc) and not ask why, that would have done it without asking why or responding in the appropriate way to a treasonist, deserve much less respect.

That is why my post is on topic.

[Eyeron]

People who look at the military as killing machines don't deserve respect.

Because the purpose of any given military is to protect their country's way of life. You cannot protect a way of life without a strong military.

And that means despite the nature of the military to obey orders except for illegal ones, that also means that these people are putting their lives on the line to protect the people of the country they serve. Even the ones they hate. And that should mean something.

[JimBenArm]

Qualified July 19, 1996 onboard the USS Providence. The only boat I served on.
Alright!
I qualifed on the USS Pollack in 1977. Also served on the Guardfish and was on the decomm crew of the George Washington. Got out in 1987.

[JimBenArm]

The first post in this thread is:



Therefore my post is on topic.

I spoke to strongly when I wrote "Most people in militaries deserve no respect" so I edited my post to remove that, but I stand by the sentence preceding it.

A military person is one who is trained to kill without asking why.

A terrorist is a person who more often kills because he is angry about something. At least terrorist know why they kill.

I don't like either one of them.
Really? I don't remember that part of my training. I remember learning about electronics, nuclear power and how the equipment on the boat worked. Seemed they neglected my training, since I was never taught to kill, in any way size shape or form.

Bet you don't know any military, do you?

[lionking]

That is why my post is on topic.

Neither the earlier posts nor this are on topic and have been reported.

This thread is about people who impersonate military personnel. Open up your own thread about the "treasonable" military if you have the courage of your convictions.

[JoeyDonuts]

This thread is about people who impersonate military personnel. Open up your own thread about the "treasonable" military if you have the courage of your convictions.

No kidding.

This one will probably be split anyhow.

[Ranb]

A military person is one who is trained to kill without asking why.

Not sure where you are getting this. I am retired Navy. I was trained to use a firearm; trained to kill. I was not allowed to use deadly force unless certain requirements arose. I will not go into the requirements for using deadly force right here, but it is completely false to say I was trained to kill without asking why.

Where and how did you learn this dubious fact?

Ranb

[Sabrina]

Clearly this clown's never heard of the ROE and how they change from encounter to encounter. :rolleyes: If he had, he'd never say military folks are trained to kill without questioning.

Ben, I suggest you look up the following: Rules of Engagement, and the Deadly Force briefing. You might actually learn something.

[BobTheDonkey]

Clearly this clown's never heard of the ROE and how they change from encounter to encounter. :rolleyes: If he had, he'd never say military folks are trained to kill without questioning.

Ben, I suggest you look up the following: Rules of Engagement, and the Deadly Force briefing. You might actually learn something.

He should also do some research into LOAC (Law of Armed Conflict) - which really covers the basics of the ROE, but perhaps a bit more in depth.

[Careyp74]

Really? I mean, you claim to have been part of the US military and you claim that the US military should be honoured (then amended to include US allies) so why are you bitchin' when I give you a "hooray?"

"But hey, if you need a pat on the back for doing the job you volunteered for, HOORAY, FOR YOU!!! "

I am done with this conversation.

[Careyp74]

Alright!
I qualifed on the USS Pollack in 1977. Also served on the Guardfish and was on the decomm crew of the George Washington. Got out in 1987.

Wow, do they have your dolphins in the Smithsonian? :)

Good to see other bubbleheads here!

[Ranb]

BenRayfield,

You made the following accusation;
A military person is one who is trained to kill without asking why.

You did not qualify this accusation or suggest that it was not all inclusive. You offered no evidence to back up this stupid claim, but continued to expand on why you think it is true;
Military people are trained to kill without asking why, because:

* efficiency and organization of the chain of command

* So they do not object to the reasons for killing, …..Because the jail was not in USA, nobody there had to obey USA law…..

You suggest that they (only the military?) are not obeying (any?) USA law. Another stupid claim; any evidence to support it? I’m rather sure that the soldiers stationed in Gitmo are obeying most US laws, including but not limited to obeying the orders of the officers appointed above them.

Ranb

[BobTheDonkey]

BenRayfield,

You made the following accusation;


You did not qualify this accusation or suggest that it was not all inclusive. You offered no evidence to back up this stupid claim, but continued to expand on why you think it is true;


You suggest that they (only the military?) are not obeying (any?) USA law. Another stupid claim; any evidence to support it? I’m rather sure that the soldiers stationed in Gitmo are obeying most US laws, including but not limited to obeying the orders of the officers appointed above them.

Ranb

Just a minor point here... The duty of Enlisted and Commissioned members of the Armed Forces is to obey lawful orders of their superiors. In the case of the abuses at Gitmo, these were not lawful orders. That is why the offending military members were disciplined - because the UCMJ and LOAC actually call for servicemen/women to not obey unlawful orders (LOAC outlines what is acceptable treatment of enemy combatants).

[Ranb]

Just a minor point here... The duty of Enlisted and Commissioned members of the Armed Forces is to obey lawful orders of their superiors. In the case of the abuses at Gitmo, these were not lawful orders. That is why the offending military members were disciplined - because the UCMJ and LOAC actually call for servicemen/women to not obey unlawful orders (LOAC outlines what is acceptable treatment of enemy combatants).

That is the point I was trying to make. That clown claims that the military does not have to obey the law. The military members are required to obey the law, one of those being the UCMJ. If they were not required to obey the law, then no one would have been disciplined as a result of any infractions.

Ranb

[BobTheDonkey]

That is the point I was trying to make. That clown claims that the military does not have to obey the law. The military members are required to obey the law, one of those being the UCMJ. If they were not required to obey the law, then no one would have been disciplined as a result of any infractions.

Ranb

Right on. A quick reread of your post makes me feel like an idiot...lol

[Sabrina]

In rare circumstances, a military member would even have to answer to TWO sets of laws; Federal or State AND the UCMJ. It's rare; normally the military and civilian courts decide between them which set of laws to try a soldier under, but it's happened, to the best of my knowledge.

[Ranb]

Right on. A quick reread of your post makes me feel like an idiot...lol

No problem. :) You are a shining beacon of intelligence compared to one person in this thread. Haha.

Ranb

[BobTheDonkey]

In rare circumstances, a military member would even have to answer to TWO sets of laws; Federal or State AND the UCMJ. It's rare; normally the military and civilian courts decide between them which set of laws to try a soldier under, but it's happened, to the best of my knowledge.

The most common exception is DUI/DWI due to the current massive crackdowns. This is one reason I was damned sure to not have even a single drink if I was the DD.

Double Jeopardy is SOP for the military out there... :D

[Ranb]

In rare circumstances, a military member would even have to answer to TWO sets of laws; Federal or State AND the UCMJ. It's rare; normally the military and civilian courts decide between them which set of laws to try a soldier under, but it's happened, to the best of my knowledge.

I remember being told at a few of my commands that if I was arrested for a DUI by the civilian police and got off on a technicality, I was likely to be sent to Captain’s Mast (non-judicial punishment) for an article 92 (disobeying an order) if there was evidence that I was drunk driving. Since failure to follow and order (not driving drunk) and DUI are different offenses, double jeopardy was not an issue.

Ranb

[Akhenaten]

The ADF used to have a catch-all charge called "Prejudicial Behavior". No matter what else you got fizzed for by the civilian police, the Service couid always back it up with a little PB charge to make sure you'd learned your lesson. Since it was a unique military offence, as in Ranb's example, there was no case to be made for double jeopardy.


Luckily, all my heinous crimes remained undetected. Mwahahahahaha!



ETA: Except for that business with the WRAAC, but we got married so they had to let us off.

[Sabrina]

The first post in this thread is:



Therefore my post is on topic.

I spoke to strongly when I wrote "Most people in militaries deserve no respect" so I edited my post to remove that, but I stand by the sentence preceding it.

A military person is one who is trained to kill without asking why.

A terrorist is a person who more often kills because he is angry about something. At least terrorist know why they kill.

I don't like either one of them.

My statements are not inconsistent.

Military people are trained to kill without asking why, because:

* efficiency and organization of the chain of command

* So they do not object to the reasons for killing, like when George W Bush set up a jail in Cuba ("Guantanamo Bay" I heard it was called) for the purpose of doing things that would have been illegal in USA in that jail. Because the jail was not in USA, nobody there had to obey USA law, Bush said. Bush directly worked against the laws of USA in expanding the USA government and is therefore a treasonist. He commanded militaries to help him do it, and they did not ask why.

There is a partial contradiction in these 2 quotes:

The first post which should define the thread topic:


contradicts this fact about the USA military helping to commit treason without
asking why:


To all military people who try their best to defend and predict dangers to their country and react in that way, I thank you.

To all military people who, theoretically if they had been asked to commit treason (but not described that way, described as "defend your country" etc) and not ask why, that would have done it without asking why or responding in the appropriate way to a treasonist, deserve much less respect.

That is why my post is on topic.

People who look at the military as killing machines don't deserve respect.

Because the purpose of any given military is to protect their country's way of life. You cannot protect a way of life without a strong military.

And that means despite the nature of the military to obey orders except for illegal ones, that also means that these people are putting their lives on the line to protect the people of the country they serve. Even the ones they hate. And that should mean something.

Really? I don't remember that part of my training. I remember learning about electronics, nuclear power and how the equipment on the boat worked. Seemed they neglected my training, since I was never taught to kill, in any way size shape or form.

Bet you don't know any military, do you?

Not sure where you are getting this. I am retired Navy. I was trained to use a firearm; trained to kill. I was not allowed to use deadly force unless certain requirements arose. I will not go into the requirements for using deadly force right here, but it is completely false to say I was trained to kill without asking why.

Where and how did you learn this dubious fact?

Ranb

Clearly this clown's never heard of the ROE and how they change from encounter to encounter. :rolleyes: If he had, he'd never say military folks are trained to kill without questioning.

Ben, I suggest you look up the following: Rules of Engagement, and the Deadly Force briefing. You might actually learn something.

He should also do some research into LOAC (Law of Armed Conflict) - which really covers the basics of the ROE, but perhaps a bit more in depth.

BenRayfield,

You made the following accusation;


You did not qualify this accusation or suggest that it was not all inclusive. You offered no evidence to back up this stupid claim, but continued to expand on why you think it is true;


You suggest that they (only the military?) are not obeying (any?) USA law. Another stupid claim; any evidence to support it? I’m rather sure that the soldiers stationed in Gitmo are obeying most US laws, including but not limited to obeying the orders of the officers appointed above them.

Ranb

Just a minor point here... The duty of Enlisted and Commissioned members of the Armed Forces is to obey lawful orders of their superiors. In the case of the abuses at Gitmo, these were not lawful orders. That is why the offending military members were disciplined - because the UCMJ and LOAC actually call for servicemen/women to not obey unlawful orders (LOAC outlines what is acceptable treatment of enemy combatants).

That is the point I was trying to make. That clown claims that the military does not have to obey the law. The military members are required to obey the law, one of those being the UCMJ. If they were not required to obey the law, then no one would have been disciplined as a result of any infractions.

Ranb

In rare circumstances, a military member would even have to answer to TWO sets of laws; Federal or State AND the UCMJ. It's rare; normally the military and civilian courts decide between them which set of laws to try a soldier under, but it's happened, to the best of my knowledge.

Bumping this to see if Ben will come back to address his so-far-completely-refuted accusations and will finally address why he feels a military member is automatically to be lumped in with a terrorist.

Have you even bothered reading the regulations, briefings, and various laws the military are subject to, Ben? Are you willing to retract your statements above in the face of evidence to the contrary? I'd like to hear your response to the refutations posted above.

We're waiting Ben.

[bigred]

Qayak: given that this is Veteran's Day, Armistice Day, or Remembrance day, and Norway didn't IIRC fight in WW I, what is your intent of trying to put words in Carey's mouth?
Aren't trolls the cutest little things? Guess things are a little slow in the religion forum.

:rolleyes:

PS in case not answered: yes, it is against the law in the U.S. to impersonate a military member - however it is not against the law (unfortunately, IMO) to wear the basic uniform itself; but if you add a name tag, service serving in etc (to say nothing of medals), you've crossed the line.

You want to do that? Earn it.